Patrimonialism. What is behind the term: ideal type, category, concept or just a buzzword?

Abstract

The terms patrimonialism and neo-patrimonialism are significantly different conceptual instruments. They are used to identify and interpret a range of phenomena. Using as a point of departure Weberian types of partimonial rule the author reconstructs the prototype of patrimonial order. Its key element is an inherent insight of mutual patrimony or patrimonium. It is both instrumental and essential common good that helps to keep together not only the rulers and the ruled but the entire patrimonial order. This and other morphological pattern of order are nothing but 'blueprints' for making conflicting desires of order come actual and real. Historical achievements and current practices provide a range of patrimonial hybrids and admixtures to political setups of all kinds. All those arrangements can be interpreted as metamorphoses of the prototype patri-monial order. The author particularly highlights the tripled knot of patrimonialism, bureaucracy and modernity in the current political practices. Conceptually coherent analysis of both functions and dysfunctions of patrimonialism helps to see the potential of patrimonial patterns of order in the ongoing political process. Insufficient and blurred conceptualization of patrimonialism let its dysfunctions loose and deprive us of abilities to overcome them. For more then four decades the word form patrimonialism in its various national transliterations along with its even more popular derivative neo-patrimo-nialism get ever widening usage in political and social discourses. Along with it phenomena that are referred to by the respective words are questioned and debated in across the vast spectrum of social sciences. Despite a buildup of important findings and insights the overarching confusion is getting ever wider. ART_ilyin.indd 26 22.6.2015 15:24:21